किताब में बहुत बाते इतिहासिक हैं लेकिन कथानक ऐतिहासिक मिथक की श्रेणी मे आता है। इसे लिख था ओरिएंटलिस्ट ने अपने फायदे के लिए लिखा गया था। इशाक खुद बरोसेमंद व्यक्ति रही था उसे मिस्र से इसीलिए निकाला गया था क्योंकि वह मन से हदीस बोलता था बिना किसी सनद के। ये किताब लिखने ये लिए किस सोर्स का इस्तेमाल किया गया है??। जिसने इस किताब का तथाकथित अनुवाद किया है उसके पास ibn ishaq की ओरिजिनल किताब मौजूद नहीं थी क्योंकि वह पर बहुत पहले ही लुप्त हो चुकी थी।। तो उसने किसी दूसरे किताब के फुटनोट का s इस्तेमाल किए हैं। अभी हमारे पास इससे भी पुराना जीवनी मौजूद हैं।।।
Many things in the book are historical but the plot falls in the category of historical myth. It was written by Orientalists for their own benefit. Ishaq himself was a trustworthy person and that is why he was expelled from Egypt...

People think it's earlier biography it not . If you just read the preface or introduction.. he author clearly said that Ibn Ishaq used unmentioned source source without chine of transmission.. we don't have any manuscript of ibn ishaq. Writer used footnotes from other maghazi literatures.. the book was commissioned by abbasid kings to boost the moral of their soldiers. It is cited by many Muslim haters.. it has historical fact but fictitious as well..

Always wondered those Sahih collection hadees of imam al Bukhari and imam Muslim was really correct according to the biography of Muhammad. It indeed goes along with this biography. The fact that today's people who call themselves Muslims can not accept some of the things Muhammad did shocks me knowing that they have no iman in islam but have believes in peace and not in terror. One of the shocking things that I can recall from this book is Muhammad and his companions including his adopted son splitting an very old woman umm qurifa into two pieces.
Hindi
hamesha aashchary hota tha ki imaam al bukhaaree aur imaam muslim kee saheeh sangrah hadees vaastav mein muhammad kee jeevanee ke anusaar sahee thee. yah vaastav mein is jeevanee ke saath chalata hai. yah tathy ki aaj ke log jo khud ko musalamaan kahate hain, muhammad dvaara kee gaee kuchh cheejon ko sveekaar nahin kar sakate hain, yah jaanakar mujhe jhataka laga ki unaka islaam mein koee eemaan nahin hai, balki ve shaanti mein vishvaas karate hain, aatank mein nahin. is kitaab se jo chaunkaane vaalee baaten mujhe yaad aa rahee hain unamen se ek hai muhammad aur unake saathiyon, jinamen unaka dattak putr bhee shaamil tha, ne ek bahut boodhee mahila umm qurifa ko do tukadon mein cut kar diya tha.

अपनी किताब की शुरू में ही लेखक ये बता देते हैं कि उनके पास प्रायमरी सोर्स नहीं है। यानी के उनके पास इब्ने इश्क नाम की कोई किताब मौजूद नहीं थी। उन्होंने दूसरी बायोग्राफिकल बुक में से जहां-जहां भी इब्ने इश्क के नाम से हादसे आती है उसे इस्तेमाल करके यह किताब लिखी है।। दूसरी किताबों का इस्तेमाल करके छान पाठक करके एक किताब बनाई गई है।। यहां एक बात और करने की है कि इब्ने इश्क खुद अपने सोर्स नहीं बताते।। जहां पर भी वह बताते हैं तो उन्होंने यह कथा वाचक से यह कहानी उठाई है।। apanee kitaab kee shuroo mein hee lekhak ye bata dete hain ki unake paas praayamaree sors nahin hai. yaanee ke unake paas ibne ishk naam kee koee kitaab maujood nahin thee. unhonne doosaree baayograaphikal buk mein se jahaan-jahaan bhee ibne ishk ke naam se haadase aatee hai use istemaal karake yah kitaab likhee hai.. doosaree kitaabon ka istemaal karake chhaan paathak karake ek kitaab banaee gaee hai.. yahaan ek baat aur karane kee hai ki ibne ishk khud apane sors nahin bataate.. jahaan par bhee vah bataate hain to unhonne yah katha vaachak se yah kahaanee uthaee hai. Sirat ki sari kitaben zaif narrator pr based Hoti hai...

Pages 688 and 689 are missing, dealing with the death burial of Muhammad.

Jerobia van dern,first islam is not a religion of violence you could know from here, islamqa.info-islam is a religion of peace for those who are peaceful,all muslims are not terrorist nor all terrorists are muslim-columban interreligious dialogue.also wars in pre Arabia,was cruel oppressive and forced upon prophet Muhammed.whatever prophet Muhammed did he did for islam and protection of ummah unlike jesus who surrender to authority and let jews suffers.even early Christians were persecuted.as for terrorism,you must concerned about this wiki-american sponsored terrorism,wiki-american state terrorism,wiki-christian terrorism,wiki-right wing terrorism.so don't use seerah as it itself glorify not demonise prophet Muhammed.

Mohammed founded Islam and is consequently an important role model for Moslems. Nonetheless the Mohammedans I have met are rather hazy about what Mohammed did and didn’t do. This is a special case of Mohammedans being hazy about facts in general. Not only are they usually ignorant about Mohammed, but they have never heard of his first known biography, attributed to one Ibn Ishaq (704-767 AD) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ibn_Ishaq
Whenever I meet Moslems I ask them if they have heard of Ibn Ishaq and the answer is always no.
Nonetheless Ibn Ishaq was highly recommended by such Islamic movers and shakers as Ibn Khaldun and Ibn Hanbal. And all subsequent bios are based on Ibn Ishaq’s.
I recently met an Indian Moslem. These are notes I made right after our conversation ended.
I asked him about Moslem terrorism in South Asia. He replied that many people seek to defame Islam, often through mistranslations. There was a reference to the USA’s insatiable demand for petroleum, but I didn’t catch exactly what this insatiable demand had to do with unreliable translations.
I broached the subject of Ibn Ishaq’s bio and showed him the web site where the English translation of the book can be downloaded. [The Life of Muhammad, a translation of Ishaq's Sirat Rasul Allah, with introduction and notes by A. Guillaume, Oxford University Press, Great Clarendon Street, Oxford. First published 1955, Reissued in Pakistan 1967, ISBN 0 19 636033 1, Seventeenth Impression 2004. Printed in Pakistan by Mas Printers, Karachi. Published by Ameena Saiyid, Oxford University Press, Plot No. 38, Sector 15, Korangl Industrial Area BO Box 8214, Karachi-74900, Pakistan] https://archive.org/details/TheLifeOfMohammedGuillaume
He says he doesn’t trust Guillaume’s translation of the Sira Rasul Allah, because Guillaume wasn’t a Moslem (How does he know that if he had never heard of Guillaume before I mentioned him to him? Actually he was right. Guillaume was a Roman Catholic. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_Guillaume ) He says if he wants to find out about Mohammed, he will ask an expert in sharia law. I asked him how come he would ask a legal expert about a historical matter. Sharia law is one thing and the life of Mohammed is something completely different. I told him if he doesn’t trust Guillaume’s translation of the Sira, why doesn’t he seek out a translation made by someone he trusts? I insisted that Ibn Ishaq was the first biographer of Mohammed and all subsequent bios rely on Ibn Ishaq. Moreover the Qur’an does not narrate Mohammed’s life in a complete or coherent way. Many crucial episodes in Mohammed’s life are not mentioned in the Qur’an, or are merely vaguely alluded to. On the other hand there are approved sources of [mis]information about Mohammed’s life, e.g. the Sunna.
I told him if he was a Moslem he should be interested in Mohammed’s life, and Ibn Ishaq was Mohammed’s first biographer, and moreover had an excellent reputation among scholars for truthfulness. He replied that he already learnt everything he needs to know about Mohammed’s life from the ahadeeth when he went to school. I told him that his conception of Mohammed as a kindly and humane ruler was contradicted by Ibn Ishaq, who narrated mass executions and other atrocities. He replied that Mohammed only defended himself against his enemies, and if he had not killed them, they would have killed him.
In any case he has no time to devote to religious studies because he is a busy professional.
He distrusts everyone who writes about Islam who is not a Moslem and who is not recommended by the scholars of his particular sect. (Don't know which, he merely said he was Sunni).
When I mentioned how extremist many Deobandi Sunni Moslems are, and that the Taliban are Deobandi, he replied that being a Deobandi or any sort of devout Moslem has no connection to extremism. This is a claim I have often heard, but for which no evidence ever seems to be forthcoming.